Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A network meta-analysis

Ibrahim A, Shalabi L, Gadelmawla AF, Hasan MT, Al-Asmar R, Alsheyab Y, Pavan Lingamsetty SS, Yousef AM et al.

European journal of pharmacology, 2025

6,997 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Combining immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with chemotherapy has significantly transformed cancer treatment, offering better options for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). This comprehensive network meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of various ICIs in patients with advanced ESCC.

METHODS: A systematic literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed across major databases up to March 2025, focusing on studies comparing ICIs (as monotherapy or combined with chemotherapy) against chemotherapy alone. Efficacy and safety outcomes were synthesized using a frequentist network meta-analysis model to generate indirect and direct treatment comparisons.

RESULTS: Thirteen trials involving 6997 patients revealed that combining ICIs with chemotherapy generally outperformed chemotherapy alone. Specifically, the combination of toripalimab and chemotherapy demonstrated the most significant improvement in overall survival (HR: 0.58, 95 % CI: 0.43-0.78, p = 0.0003; SUCRA: 0.86). Meanwhile, Sintilimab combined with chemotherapy provided the greatest benefit in progression-free survival (HR = 0.56, 95 % CI [0.46; 0.68], p-value <0.0001; SUCRA: 0.87). Tislelizumab alone was noted for its effectiveness in enhancing overall response rates (RR = 2.08, p = 0.0012). Nivolumab was the most effective in lowering the risk of grade 3 or greater adverse events compared to chemotherapy (RR = 0.28, 95 % CI: 0.21-0.39, p < 0.0001; SUCRA: 1).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 6,997 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free